Agenda item

Ken Dale, Interim Townscape Manager

Ken Dale, the Interim Townscape Manager, introduced the draft Systra study of Cheltenham’s transport connectivity.  He reminded members that the corporate action plan 2018-19 committed to the commissioning of a study which would put in place a borough-wide transport plan with a focus on modal shift, accessibility and bus connectivity.  The resulting Cheltenham transport plan would form part of the council’s contribution to Gloucestershire County Council’s review of the countywide Local Transport Plan.  With support from a range of stakeholders, a number of workshops had been held; this committee had considered a paper back in June 2019 and Systra had presented their conclusions at a member seminar on the 7 August.  The views of this committee and its members were now being invited, with a view to finalising the report, ready to make recommendations to Cabinet in October. 

The Interim Townscape Manager gave the following responses to member questions:

·  He could not recall a particular conversation at the recent member seminar on a Park and Ride in Charlton Kings and would therefore raise this with Systra and come back to members on this issue. 

·  The study included proposals about inclusion and accessibility for all and this, without mentioning it directly, included blue badge holders and those that had to use private transport. 

·  The council would be looking to have provision in place to allow children to cycle to school, where possible. 

·  Discussions with public transport providers will include a request to be more imaginative about pricing given that this was often the factor on which families based their decision to use private transport rather than public.

·  The report highlighted the need for real-time information on public transport and acknowledged trains from Ashchurch to Cheltenham as a big missing.

·  He accepted that for the transport plan to work, the principles would need to be imbedded with all partners, including GCC as the Highways Authority.

·  Systra had set out indicative costs and the Cabinet report would include more detail on funding options, but CBC’s means were limited and therefore it would need to influence the spending of GCC, CIL and S106 monies, transport companies and Central Government. 

·  Systra had attempted to align their estimates with GCC bands, hence the large ranges quoted in the report.

·  Data sets were sadly limited and as such Systra had little choice but to base some of their assumptions on the 2011 census.  It was stressed that Systra had been asked for a strategy, which by its very nature, had limited detail. 

·  CBC was currently considering approaches to officer training workshops with Systra and this could be extended to holding events throughout Cheltenham, but there would be cost implications to this approach.

·  In terms of the language that had been used, it was noted that this was an intentional attempt to give certain things a brand of their own; but he took the point that this might appear over-complicated and alienate some people from engaging.

·  GCCs engagement to date had included an officer on the project team, several officers having reviewed and had input into the draft report, and members, including the relevant Cabinet member, having attended workshops. The draft Systra report has been used for CBC input into GCC’s Local Transport Plan.

Comments from members included:

·         There was an issue with residents from parking free schemes being given permits in resident parking zones which were already oversubscribed and this needed to be resolved. 

·         A member raised S106 as a particular concern to him in instances where monies did not cross boundaries but people living just outside of the borough worked in and sent their children to School in Cheltenham. 

·         One member queried the lack of detail in terms of how the proposed interchange and micro-exchanges would work and voiced concerns that Systra had not visited areas to see how these things would work in reality.  He hoped that the final iteration of the report would provide more clarity on this issue. 

·         There was a lack of Cheltenham specific images with the only one of note being the train station. 

·         Members urged for appropriately segregated cycleways, similar to those adopted by the dutch, rather than something that did not appear at all ambitious i.e. a cycle symbol on an existing and unaltered highway.  The Interim Townscape Manager assured members that the ambition was for a strategic cycleway network and lower connective network beneath it, both of a high quality.     

·         There appeared to be no solution to the issue that had been raised at earlier events, to the cycle link between Charlton Kings and Leckhampton.  

·         A member suggested that the station was in the wrong location and therefore some buses went to it, but not enough.  There also needed to be more about improved accessibility as at present, it wasn’t possible for some people in the town to cycle to the station.  The Townscape Manager confirmed that the interchange was mentioned in the report and the next step would be to look at connectivity. 

·         It was unclear as to the need to reduce the speed limits along Shurdington Lane and Up Hatherley Lane as there were no obvious points at which it would be necessary to cross either of these lanes, except where crossing already existed. 

In response to member question about the CIL Board, the Leader explained that the Board did not yet actually exist.  He went on to explain that the process of establishing the Board had been delayed as a result of Mike Dawson, Chief Executive of TBC and lead, having been involved in an accident.  He hoped that a report would be ready for Cabinet in October but at present felt that this may be optimistic. 

The Chairman summarised the key points and thanked the Interim Townscape Manager for this attendance.